My Extractor Solution For Now (with pics)

I have gen 2.5 26 with cast extractor and non-lci edp and a gen 3 17 with non-dip LCI extractor. I field stripped both guns and placed a 9mm case under the extractor to test how the case was held to the breechface. Both extractors held the case tight with little to no movement. I tried the cast extractor, non-dip lci, dip lci, and apex extractor in my problematic gen 3 19. All extractors failed to hold the case firmly to the breechface. I am convinced this is the reason for my erratic ejection.

Someone postulated that the cutout for the extractor in the slide was machined wrong and causing erratic ejection. I'm starting to think that is what is wrong with my gun.

Well, on closer examination of my extractor depressor plunger (henceforth called EDP) I discovered that JBS was right after all. What I thought was a ring is actually wear (scoring). The slide is digging into the front end of the EDP. And this is after only 500 rounds!

My Gen3 G27 that ejected erratically showed the same wear to the EDP. Every case of erratic ejection I've seen in which the EDP was examined, though few, showed the same wear. I wonder if the EDP channel may be too tight.

My suspicion at the time was that part of the EDP is slightly tapered and gets wider toward the muzzle end. In my G27 the gap between the extractor claw and breech face is noticeably bigger than in my G23, even when the extractors are swapped between the two. That suggests to me that the extractor indeed sits further forward in the slide, allowing the EDP to protrude slightly more from its channel with the slightly smaller diameter portion rubbing against the opening of that channel. There's a similar wear mark on the EDP of my G23 but it's ever so slightly further forward and it's no where near as pronounced.

My Gen3 G27 that ejected erratically showed the same wear to the EDP. Every case of erratic ejection I've seen in which the EDP was examined, though few, showed the same wear. I wonder if the EDP channel may be too tight.

My suspicion at the time was that part of the EDP is slightly tapered and gets wider toward the muzzle end. In my G27 the gap between the extractor claw and breech face is noticeably bigger than in my G23, even when the extractors are swapped between the two. That suggests to me that the extractor indeed sits further forward in the slide, allowing the EDP to protrude slightly more from its channel with the slightly smaller diameter portion rubbing against the opening of that channel. There's a similar wear mark on the EDP of my G23 but it's ever so slightly further forward and it's no where near as pronounced.

As I have said before, based on my gun at least, too tight isn't the problem. There enough room in the EDP channel for the EDP to wiggle a little, so it's not binding. My guess is that the front end of the channel is very hard and very sharp.

You have said something very interesting that hasn't been mentioned before. That is that there is a different amount of space between the extractor claw and the breech face with different slides and the same extractor. Different models I realize, so not apples to apples. Still, I wonder if this doesn't lend some credibility to those who are saying that some of the slides are out of spec. It would be interesting to get a few owners of the same model and generation together and try this.

As I have said before, based on my gun at least, too tight isn't the problem. There enough room in the EDP channel for the EDP to wiggle a little, so it's not binding. My guess is that the front end of the channel is very hard and very sharp.

You have said something very interesting that hasn't been mentioned before. That is that there is a different amount of space between the extractor claw and the breech face with different slides and the same extractor. Different models I realize, so not apples to apples. Still, I wonder if this doesn't lend some credibility to those who are saying that some of the slides are out of spec. It would be interesting to get a few owners of the same model and generation together and try this.

My slide is definately out of spec. See my post above

I took the non lci extractor and slb out of my gen 2 22 and tried it in the 19. It holds the 9mm case much more securely to the breechface than a 9mm extractor of an gen. I'm betting this solves my ejection problems. I'll know Friday for sure

I took the non lci extractor and slb out of my gen 2 22 and tried it in the 19. It holds the 9mm case much more securely to the breechface than a 9mm extractor of an gen. I'm betting this solves my ejection problems. I'll know Friday for sure

So the winner is: "Tolerance Stacking". I think that's what someone called it. Not one issue in every case, but sloppy QC all over the system. Bad extractors, bad slides, bad EDP's, and who knows what else.

"Buying a Glock is like a box of choklits - you never know what you're gonna' get. My mama told me that".

I guess that's what I'm going to believe from now on about Glock. And I don't think Glock is the only company doing this.

So the winner is: "Tolerance Stacking". I think that's what someone called it. Not one issue in every case, but sloppy QC all over the system. Bad extractors, bad slides, bad EDP's, and who knows what else.

"Buying a Glock is like a box of choklits - you never know what you're gonna' get. My mama told me that".

I guess that's what I'm going to believe from now on about Glock. And I don't think Glock is the only company doing this.

Yep. Voyager is absolutely right about the slot for the extractor being machined too far forward in some new 9mm glocks. It makes perfect sense and would explain why 99% of the time erratic ejection occurs, it is a model 19.

It seems some folks are having issues with just the extractor being out of spec and replacing the extractor solves all ejection problems. I consider them lucky.

If one has to use the 30274 ejector to get decent ejection, then I suspect an out of spec slide is at play. In my gun, it appears that the case mouth is dropping down early during the extraction phase, hitting the ejector at different points each time, thus leading to erratic ejection. It appears the 30274 is just a band aid fix by altering ejection enough to compensate for the poor hold on the case by the extractor. I bet Glock knows that some of their slides are out of spec but don't want to replace them because that would be very expensive compared to a new ejector.

I took the non lci extractor and slb out of my gen 2 22 and tried it in the 19. It holds the 9mm case much more securely to the breechface than a 9mm extractor of an gen. I'm betting this solves my ejection problems. I'll know Friday for sure

The .40 extractor claw is set a little farther back than a 9mm claw. I can't find the picture now but there was a picture on this forum of a 9mm and .40 extractor set right on top of each other that showed this. The .40 claw is angled rearward by 5 degrees to help raise the case mouth of the larger .40 casing up higher before it starts to exit the ejection port, the top of the claw is set a little closer to the breech face.

Some people have been able to drop a .40 extractor right into their 9mm slides and it fixed the ejection problem, however one person on this forum had to file down the top of the claw slightly to allow the 9mm case rim to slide under the claw properly. Once he did, it worked and fixed the ejection problem, but this lends to the idea that there is variation in how the cut-out in the slide for the extractor is placed.

The .40 extractor claw is set a little farther back than a 9mm claw. I can't find the picture now but there was a picture on this forum of a 9mm and .40 extractor set right on top of each other that showed this. The .40 claw is angled rearward by 5 degrees to help raise the case mouth of the larger .40 casing up higher before it starts to exit the ejection port, the top of the claw is set a little closer to the breech face.

Some people have been able to drop a .40 extractor right into their 9mm slides and it fixed the ejection problem, however one person on this forum had to file down the top of the claw slightly to allow the 9mm case rim to slide under the claw properly. Once he did, it worked and fixed the ejection problem, but this lends to the idea that there is variation in how the cut-out in the slide for the extractor is placed.

The 40 non LCI extractor in my gen 3 19 holds a 9mm case to the breechface in the same manner as my gen 2.5 26 with non LCI extractor and gen 3 17 with non dip LCI extractor. The dip LCI, non dip LCI, cast non LCI, and Apex extractor all do not hold the case to the breechface well at all. If the 40 cal extractor doesn't work, I think my only option is to get a lone wolf or caspian slide or get rid of the gun.

The 30274 ejection stopped brass to the face, but I've had one horizontal stovepipe and one phase 3 malfunction in 500 rounds. Some folks with erratic ejection say they have not had a stoppage, but it is just a matter of time.

I broke 750 rounds today. No jams of any kind. I don't think I have it as bad as some. Of course none of the extractor assembly is OEM at this point. It's half aftermarket and half home made. Today I was shooting a handload that's a lighter than my normal one. Brass went mostly high and right with maybe 30% over my head. It all landed 5 to 7 feet away. Nothing to the left or straight back at me. One case hit the top of my head on the way down. I never get hit at all with full power loads.

I did an interesting experiment. I shot ten rounds single feeding. One round in the mag, feed it and shoot. The idea was to take any inconsistency in the position of the next round out of the equation. I then shot a ten round series by loading ten in the mag as one normally would. There was no perceptible difference in the ejection pattern of the two groups. So, at least in my gun, wobbling, jumping, moving, or otherwise unstable next rounds are not a factor.

I have three extractors on order from Glockparts - two OEM and one Lone Wolf Distributers. I plan to experiment with straightening out the angle in the claw and making compensating cuts as needed. I'll need to move the tensioning assembly forward a bit as well. I'm curious to see if that will make a difference, and I don't want to wait for Apex to go into serious production.

I was just reading about Dave Nowlin's fix by filing down the extractor pad that rests against the slide and see how that might work. The claw of my G22 non lci extractor does not go in as far toward the center of the breechface when installed in my 19 as it does when I drop it in the 22. There is enough difference to visually discern it. I see how filing that pad down could allow the extractor to grip the rim a little better. Just curious if anyone has done this and has it helped?

I was just reading about Dave Nowlin's fix by filing down the extractor pad that rests against the slide and see how that might work. The claw of my G22 non lci extractor does not go in as far toward the center of the breechface when installed in my 19 as it does when I drop it in the 22. There is enough difference to visually discern it. I see how filing that pad down could allow the extractor to grip the rim a little better. Just curious if anyone has done this and has it helped?

As long as the claw goes in far enough to put pressure in the case groove and maybe a little more, that's all you need. You don't want it too far in when at rest, as this will cause feeding problems as the cartridge struggles to move the extractor out while also jumping through all the other hoops it has to navigate to get into the chamber. It's a balance.

When I start my experiments I know I will need to take some off the pad you refer to in order to compensate for the material I am taking off the claw. However, since there is some tension on the case even in the linked down position with the angled extractor, I don't expect to need or want to take much off the pad. The main thing will be to adjust the tensioning parts so that full tension is applied with the claw effectively in a bit farther than with the angled claw.

I detail stripped my gen 3 17, gen 2.5 26, and problematic gen 3 19 slides and measured from the front edge of the extractor channel to the opposite external surface of the slide. There were no appreciable differences in the dimensions. I don't think the problem lies with the depth of the extractor channel. I still think the extractor is situated too far from the breechface. Due to the angle of the cut in the slide, it appears that filing down the extractor pad per Dave's recommendations would not only apply more biting force to the case rim, but would also swing the extractor in towards the breechface a little. The pad that needs filing is 0.023" on my extractor. I think I'll take off 0.012 and see what it does.

I detail stripped my gen 3 17, gen 2.5 26, and problematic gen 3 19 slides and measured from the front edge of the extractor channel to the opposite external surface of the slide. There were no appreciable differences in the dimensions. I don't think the problem lies with the depth of the extractor channel. I still think the extractor is situated too far from the breechface. Due to the angle of the cut in the slide, it appears that filing down the extractor pad per Dave's recommendations would not only apply more biting force to the case rim, but would also swing the extractor in towards the breechface a little. The pad that needs filing is 0.023" on my extractor. I think I'll take off 0.012 and see what it does.

By coincidence I field stripped my Glock 19 Gen 4, my M&P FS 9mm, and my Kahr CW9 at the same time. Both the M&P and the Kahr eject perfectly, and will eject normally with the mag out (the "1911 test). I lined the slides up together to see if there was a difference in the gap between the breechface and the claw. There was no difference that I could see, although I have no way of measuring precisely.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing what you suggest as long as you don't take off so much that you cause feeding problems. I would suggest removing .006" and see how it's feeding before taking off the other .006".

I don't think taking material from the pad will, in and of itself, do any good. If the claw is at the bottom of the groove in the cartridge head with the case where it would be in the linked down position, and if removing the case allows the claw to move in even a little bit more, then lack of inward travel is not the problem. Allowing it to move inward more will not put more tension on it when the spent case is at its lowest position. A stronger spring will. Or a SLB with a longer "head" will.

If you put an empty case in the extractor so that the case is near the bottom of the extractor, where it will be when it's being ejected, you will see that the case, not the pad on the extractor, limits the inward travel of the extractor claw.

However, having said all that, there's nothing wrong with experimenting as long as you have a spare extractor on hand in case you cause feeding issues. If I am wrong and your idea works, of course I'd like to know about it.

I have three spare extractors, two new non dip Glock and 1 LWD, arriving later today. I intend to do my experiment with one of the non-dip Glock ones as soon as they arrive. What I'm going to do is remove material from the edge of the claw to make it parallel with the opposite side of the slide, recut the groove and trim the front of the claw as needed, and then take a bit off the pad, but just enough to keep tension on the case. Since there is already tension on the case in the linked down position, I don't think I'll need to take .012" off the pad: probably more like .002"to .004". I will then make a new SLB to put more tension on the claw and move the EDP forward to compensate for the material I have removed. I already have a White Sound Defense extra power EDP spring in there, and spares in case I compress it too much and deform it.

I believe, along with Randy Lee, that taking the angle off the claw and putting more tension on it will help. My goal is to make this gun pass the 1911 test. Even though it has never jammed, the fact that it will not pass this test bothers me. I would like to see this gun eject as predictably as my other 9mm pistols.

Assuming the Fedex truck gets here in time, I will make my modifications and go test them at the range all later today. I will post results. If I did any good I'll post photos.

I have to say I am really questioning my decision to buy a Glock next year. A gun with enough extractor problems to pop a Google search result to the top of the list seems problematic as a tool for defending one's life. My problem is that the Gen 4 Glocks are the first ones that feel comfortable in my hand so buying an older more reliable Glock is not something I am interested in. Frustrating. Surely Glock will address this issue eventually? I wonder if the company will retain its closed mouth obtuse "Glocks never fail" policy when Gaston is no longer around?

Though it seems you are a talented craftsman, this all seems a little extreme...You could have sent it back to Glock? That is unless you are enjoying spending your time hand crafting parts to make a fairly new weapon function the way it should? (Not trying to be a jerk...)

By coincidence I field stripped my Glock 19 Gen 4, my M&P FS 9mm, and my Kahr CW9 at the same time. Both the M&P and the Kahr eject perfectly, and will eject normally with the mag out (the "1911 test). I lined the slides up together to see if there was a difference in the gap between the breechface and the claw. There was no difference that I could see, although I have no way of measuring precisely.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing what you suggest as long as you don't take off so much that you cause feeding problems. I would suggest removing .006" and see how it's feeding before taking off the other .006".

I don't think taking material from the pad will, in and of itself, do any good. If the claw is at the bottom of the groove in the cartridge head with the case where it would be in the linked down position, and if removing the case allows the claw to move in even a little bit more, then lack of inward travel is not the problem. Allowing it to move inward more will not put more tension on it when the spent case is at its lowest position. A stronger spring will. Or a SLB with a longer "head" will.

If you put an empty case in the extractor so that the case is near the bottom of the extractor, where it will be when it's being ejected, you will see that the case, not the pad on the extractor, limits the inward travel of the extractor claw.

However, having said all that, there's nothing wrong with experimenting as long as you have a spare extractor on hand in case you cause feeding issues. If I am wrong and your idea works, of course I'd like to know about it.

I have three spare extractors, two new non dip Glock and 1 LWD, arriving later today. I intend to do my experiment with one of the non-dip Glock ones as soon as they arrive. What I'm going to do is remove material from the edge of the claw to make it parallel with the opposite side of the slide, recut the groove and trim the front of the claw as needed, and then take a bit off the pad, but just enough to keep tension on the case. Since there is already tension on the case in the linked down position, I don't think I'll need to take .012" off the pad: probably more like .002"to .004". I will then make a new SLB to put more tension on the claw and move the EDP forward to compensate for the material I have removed. I already have a White Sound Defense extra power EDP spring in there, and spares in case I compress it too much and deform it.

I believe, along with Randy Lee, that taking the angle off the claw and putting more tension on it will help. My goal is to make this gun pass the 1911 test. Even though it has never jammed, the fact that it will not pass this test bothers me. I would like to see this gun eject as predictably as my other 9mm pistols.

Assuming the Fedex truck gets here in time, I will make my modifications and go test them at the range all later today. I will post results. If I did any good I'll post photos.

FWIW, the Apex extractor did not solve my ejection problems, so I think more than extractor geometry and lack of extractor tension are at play, at least on my gun

Though it seems you are a talented craftsman, this all seems a little extreme...You could have sent it back to Glock? That is unless you are enjoying spending your time hand crafting parts to make a fairly new weapon function the way it should? (Not trying to be a jerk...)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Some of us, including myself, have already given Glock a chance to fix the issue and they have failed. While I don't experience BTF anymore, I've had a few stovepipes due to brass bouncing around in the ejection port. My slide is out of spec. Short of replacing the slide or altering an extractor to compensate, there is no fixing it.

Some of us, including myself, have already given Glock a chance to fix the issue and they have failed. While I don't experience BTF anymore, I've had a few stovepipes due to brass bouncing around in the ejection port. My slide is out of spec. Short of replacing the slide or altering an extractor to compensate, there is no fixing it.

I am aware that these Gen 4 extractors (Especially the 19's) have been an issue, I guess I didn't truly realize to what extent...If I had these issues I would beat the door down with phone calls until they were sick of me.

... I intend to do my experiment with one of the non-dip Glock ones as soon as they arrive. What I'm going to do is remove material from the edge of the claw to make it parallel with the opposite side of the slide, recut the groove and trim the front of the claw as needed, and then take a bit off the pad, but just enough to keep tension on the case. Since there is already tension on the case in the linked down position, I don't think I'll need to take .012" off the pad: probably more like .002"to .004". I will then make a new SLB to put more tension on the claw and move the EDP forward to compensate for the material I have removed. ...

Have you looked at a non-LCI extractor? Sounds like that's what you're going to make.

Some of us, including myself, have already given Glock a chance to fix the issue and they have failed. While I don't experience BTF anymore, I've had a few stovepipes due to brass bouncing around in the ejection port. My slide is out of spec. Short of replacing the slide or altering an extractor to compensate, there is no fixing it.

Molar, if I may ask what ejector is currently installed in your pistol?